For decades, the United States and Iran have engaged in a grinding, low-intensity conflict defined more by threats and diplomatic maneuvering than by direct action. American policymakers across multiple administrations consistently voiced strong opposition to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional destabilization efforts. Yet the response remained predictable: economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and carefully worded statements of concern. That pattern was decisively broken in 2025, when President Trump ordered a direct and devastating strike on two of Iran’s most heavily fortified nuclear facilities.
While progressive lawmakers like Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rushed to frame the operation as reckless and unconstitutional, centrist Democrats remained noticeably quieter.
The operation targeted the Natanz and Fordow enrichment sites — two pillars of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. The damage was both symbolic and operational. Israeli defense officials described the results as “strategically disabling.” Perhaps more telling than the physical destruction was Iran’s almost immediate decision to halt its ballistic missile attacks on Israeli cities and agree to an informal ceasefire.
Trump’s decision marked one of the most significant departures from traditional U.S. policy toward Iran in over a decade. Under President Barack Obama, American foreign policy leaned heavily on negotiation and soft power. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, was intended to curb Iran’s nuclear development in exchange for sanctions relief.
In practice, however, the agreement failed to address Iran’s growing ballistic missile program and its support for proxy militias across the Middle East. Worse still, it failed at its core objective: halting Iran’s nuclear program.
In 2018, the Trump administration made the correct decision to withdraw from the JCPOA. What had been promoted as a diplomatic solution quickly became a mechanism for Iran to secure billions of dollars in sanctions relief while continuing its nuclear activities behind the scenes. When Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad, revealed a 55,000-page archive proving Iran’s blatant violations of the deal, Trump’s decision to exit was fully justified.
The contrast in leadership styles between Trump and Obama is particularly stark when viewed alongside the 2009 Green Movement, when millions of Iranians protested election fraud and political repression. The Obama administration refrained from offering vocal support, citing concerns about interfering in Iran’s domestic affairs.
In retrospect, most foreign policy experts now view that silence as a missed opportunity to weaken the Iranian regime from within. Obama later admitted that failing to support the Green Movement was one of the biggest mistakes of his presidency.
The reason for that decision is no mystery. From the start of his administration, Obama prioritized reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran. Speaking out against the regime would have jeopardized those negotiations. It was a clear case of placing personal diplomatic ambitions above America’s long-term strategic interests.
Fast forward to 2025, and Trump’s approach left no room for ambiguity. The message was clear: hostile actions like Iran’s accelerating nuclear development would meet immediate and tangible consequences. Iran’s decision to de-escalate following the strike proved a simple truth that too many in Washington ignored for years — strength, not hesitation, creates deterrence.
The domestic political response revealed familiar divisions. Progressive media outlets sounded alarms about constitutional overreach and the risk of regional war. Members of Congress debated whether the president had exceeded his authority by launching the strike without prior legislative approval. Yet despite the outrage from the Left, public opinion told a different story.
A post-strike survey conducted by Pew Research Center found that nearly half of self-identified Democrats expressed at least moderate support for the operation, surprising many observers.
Even within Democratic leadership, the response to the strikes was not all negative. Dakarai Larreitt, a Democratic U.S. Senate candidate from Alabama, reflected this nuanced view in a recent interview.
When asked about the constitutionality of Trump’s decision, Larreitt stated,
There’s an important nuance here. A full declaration of war obviously belongs to Congress, but the War Powers Resolution exists for a reason. In situations where there’s an immediate threat, presidents are expected to act quickly. Whether this was the right call isn’t something I can judge without full access to the intelligence, but from a legal standpoint, it is within the executive’s emergency powers.
Such comments highlight a growing recognition, even within Democrat circles, that deterrence sometimes requires decisive action. While progressive lawmakers like Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rushed to frame the operation as reckless and unconstitutional, centrist Democrats remained noticeably quieter. Many recognize that voters, especially in swing states, tend to reward displays of strength on national security.
The long-term international consequences remain to be seen. Some argue that the strike did not permanently eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities. That may be true, but it misses the broader point. After years of inaction and failed diplomatic efforts, Trump’s decision reasserted America’s willingness to defend its allies and interests through force when necessary.
Whether future administrations will continue this more assertive standard of deterrence or revert to older strategies of negotiation and restraint remains uncertain. What is clear is that the 2025 strikes will be studied for years as a case study in how prompt, decisive military action — controversial though it may be — can produce short-term stability in moments of high-stakes confrontation.
In the end, Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities was a strategic declaration that American patience has limits — and that crossing those limits comes with consequences.
READ MORE from Gregory Lyakhov: